Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustoo
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
They may wish to officially impeach him so that his pardons can be negated. Maybe all of them depending on how the court decides it, since I am guessing there is no precedent here. This would make egregious pardoning less of a problem since such pardons are nullified by successful impeachment. Also these pardons are for offenses against the United States (like going to war) so there seems to be lots of other avenues to prosecure people he has pardoned.
|
"and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." I believe is not meant to be read as nullifying his pardons in the event of his impeachment. This language means that he cannot pardon someone who has themselves been impeached. This makes sense, from both a checks and balances perspective and a separation of power perspective. Impeachment is a legislative check on executive power, and the executive branch cannot simply brush it aside by its own fiat the way it could a criminal conviction. It is also a purely political process, rather than a criminal one. I don't *think* there's any precedent for criminal penalty coming out of an impeachment process - that would raise all sorts of constitutional issues, if so.